Pentagon Plane Crash: Debunking the Conspiracy Theories

[Smurf]

Ok! Who's up for a Conspiracy Theory!

Boing! http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm suggests that the Pentagon was, in fact, not hit by a plane at all, they have some sound evidence too. Apparently there is a lot of sceptism about this.
Rense.com also has a view on it and for the linguistically talented try http://www.asile.org/citoyens/index-pentagone.htm , and This one too

 

[franznietzsche]

This is really old news. I mean really old. Like more than a year I think.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think it was hit by a blimp.

 

[Smurf]

This is really old news. I mean really old. Like more than a year I think.

Well SORRY! I'm not american so I don't follow all your conspiracies all the friggin time. God.

A blimp? How so?

 

[franznietzsche]

No really, i think I've seen in this in 3 different threads in the past year. I remember most if not all of those questions having been sufficiently addressed. Damn, why is it i can never find old threads when i want to... (on any forum, not just here)...

 

[Smurf]

damnit, someone find it then, I want proof that a plane hit the damn pentagon!

 

[franznietzsche]

damnit, someone find it then, I want proof that a plane hit the damn pentagon!

I don't think it was here...i just remember having been sent to similar websites from forum threads several times...one of the sites had a very well edited video clip done portraying their claims and evidence, same stuff as that site you just posted, just with a really nice presentation.

 

[russ_watters]

damnit, someone find it then, I want proof that a plane hit the damn pentagon!

If eyewitnesses and airplane chunks aren't enough for you, nothing will be.

Do a search of the site for threads on the subject.

 

[honestrosewater]

Since I am too lazy/skeptical to read the link, can anyone tell me what they claim happened to that plane? There was a plane full of people. Did it just disappear?

 

[mattmns]

This one is sugessting that a boeing did not hit the pentagon and that the pictures(they have) do not show a plane or any debris from a plane. I think what they are getting at is that a truck filled with explosives crashed into the pentagon, as this was originally reported by the ap (according to this site)

There was a post just like this a week or two ago dealing with the color(blue I think) of the plane instead, and that was their "proof" that a boeing never hit the pentagon. *looks for thread*

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=54689&highlight=blue

here it is, the thread is not originally about this, but it does after burnsys first post.

 

[check]

Ok! Who's up for a Conspiracy Theory!

Boing! http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm suggests that the Pentagon was, in fact, not hit by a plane at all, they have some sound evidence too. Apparently there is a lot of sceptism about this.
Rense.com also has a view on it and for the linguistically talented try http://www.asile.org/citoyens/index-pentagone.htm , and This one too

This really belongs in skepticism/debunking...
What a terrible conspiracy. *shakes head in disgust*

 

[russ_watters]

*looks for thread*

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=54689&highlight=blue

here it is, the thread is not originally about this, but it does after burnsys first post.

That thread is pretty thin: THIS one contains quite a bit of debunking.

This conspiracy theory is my new Benchmark Conspiracy Theory. This conspiracy theory is such an obvious pack of lies/misrepresentations that a child could see it. Choosing to believe it (or worse, promulgate it) shows clearly where a person stands on reality.

 

[franznietzsche]

I guess those threads were here. Glad someone could find them.

 

[tribdog]

This one is sugessting that a boeing did not hit the pentagon and that the pictures(they have) do not show a plane or any debris from a plane. I think what they are getting at is that a truck filled with explosives crashed into the pentagon, as this was originally reported by the ap (according to this site)

I don't think there is any way the ap reported anything other than a plane hitting the pentagon. I was glued to the tv from about 5 minutes after the first plane hit the towers and everyone knew it was hijacked airplanes being used.

 

[Moonbear]

I don't think there is any way the ap reported anything other than a plane hitting the pentagon. I was glued to the tv from about 5 minutes after the first plane hit the towers and everyone knew it was hijacked airplanes being used.

I didn't even know it was real news footage when I first turned on the TV. I have a habit of flipping on the TV when I wake up and not really paying much attention to what's on. I thought it was some movie I hadn't seen before. It wasn't until I tried changing channels that I realized it wasn't a movie!

Oh, and there's an easy way to get footage of the scene without any wreckage present, just wait until after it's cleaned up to take your photos.

Besides, do you think the airlines don't know what planes they had take-off that morning that never returned to the airport?

If the Pentagon was going to attempt a cover-up, they'd be covering up that they were hit at all (as in, not wanting to admit they were vulnerable to attack), not claiming it was a passenger flight if it was a missile!

 

[mattmns]

I don't think there is any way the ap reported anything other than a plane hitting the pentagon. I was glued to the tv from about 5 minutes after the first plane hit the towers and everyone knew it was hijacked airplanes being used.

Yeah I never heard the AP say that either, I was just taking what I got from the site, as a summary for the guy/gal who posted above me who wanted to know what bogus conspiracy this one was. Here is what the site says(the first site), "The Associated Press first reported that a booby-trapped truck had caused the explosion."

 

[Janitor]

I'm pretty sure that the lower 48 states, and especially the northeastern region, are saturated with Air Traffic Control radars. What I am not sure of is whether the radar screen information is sampled and stored for a time. If in fact it is, then there would be lots of independent confirmations of whether that flight path actually was taken, and nobody would even bother to try to pull off such a scheme.

 

[russ_watters]

There is a catch, Janitor - air traffic control radar isn't really radar. It only receives and decodes the transponder signal transmitted by an airplane. So if the transponder is turned off, the plane disappears from ATC radar. That said, I'm not sure if the 9/11 planes turned off their transponders or not.

 

[Moonbear]

There is a catch, Janitor - air traffic control radar isn't really radar. It only receives and decodes the transponder signal transmitted by an airplane. So if the transponder is turned off, the plane disappears from ATC radar. That said, I'm not sure if the 9/11 planes turned off their transponders or not.

I think they all had their transponders on, because I recall news footage where they were able to track the flight paths and when they realized they were off course, but too late to do anything about it. Is it true that transponders can't be tracked below a certain altitude? I think I heard that somewhere, but don't know if it's true.

 

[JasonRox]

I doubt they would hit the Pentagon. They're mad at the World Trade Organization, not the American Army or whatever you want to call it.

Nevermind... they are attacking freedom.

 

[russ_watters]

Is it true that transponders can't be tracked below a certain altitude? I think I heard that somewhere, but don't know if it's true.

Yes, but that's simply a matter of the horizon: you need a line-of-sight between the transmitter and reciever and if the Earth gets in the way...

 

[tribdog]

There is a catch, Janitor - air traffic control radar isn't really radar. It only receives and decodes the transponder signal transmitted by an airplane. So if the transponder is turned off, the plane disappears from ATC radar. That said, I'm not sure if the 9/11 planes turned off their transponders or not.

that's not true. My dad works for the FAA as a radar technician. You ever see those two white golf balls on top of some mountains, he works in one of those. I remember going to work with him and playing with the radar screen. Sweeping green line and everything. It had a ball like the one on the Centipede video games, it moved a little diamond on the screen and I'd move it over a plane and hit a button and get a print out of altitude, direction, speed and information from the transponder like flight number. Sometimes I could also see storm clouds, and they don't have their transponders turned on.

 

[russ_watters]

that's not true. My dad works for the FAA as a radar technician. You ever see those two white golf balls on top of some mountains, he works in one of those. I remember going to work with him and playing with the radar screen. Sweeping green line and everything. It had a ball like the one on the Centipede video games, it moved a little diamond on the screen and I'd move it over a plane and hit a button and get a print out of altitude, direction, speed and information from the transponder like flight number. Sometimes I could also see storm clouds, and they don't have their transponders turned on.

tribdog, the FAA may run a handful of real radars, but all of what you described could still be passive (with the exception of the clouds, obviously): even the sweeping green line. Altitude, course, and speed are transponder information - altitude, in particular, requires a pretty advanced 3-d radar to figure out without a transponder and course and speed require tracking the contact for several seconds at least. Also, IIRC, there still needs to be a transmission from the radar that is picked up and responded to by the transponder.

Those balls on the mountains are real doppler radars, mostly for weather - ironically, there are many more TV stations than airports that have them.

THIS is a typical radar output.

http://www.argospress.com/Resources/radar/airtrafficontroradar.htm

Airport radar shows air traffic controllers information on aircraft in controlled air space, and possibly surrounding uncontrolled airspace. Air traffic control radar (ATC radar) systems include:

Primary radar, which uses signals scattered off the bodies of aircraft to obtain information on their location and altitude. Primary radar is normally available only close to major airports.
Secondary radar, or secondary surveillance radar, which relies on interrogation of transponders carried by aircraft. Secondary radar provides most of the radar coverage available to an air traffic controller, and has a much longer range than primary radar.

 

[Moonbear]

Those balls on the mountains are real doppler radars, mostly for weather - ironically, there are many more TV stations than airports that have them.

Yep, I think competing for having the most traffic helicopters went out of style (maybe they were colliding mid-air with so many up over so few roads out here), so now the local stations are competing for having the most doppler radars for weather. One station now has 5. They show the sweep patterns every once in a while along with the weather reports, and at least one seems completely superfluous: the pattern is overlapped with the area covered by the other radars around it. They say it gives us more advanced warning of severe weather. But, some of the newer radars are East of the city, and since it only takes a storm at most an hour to track from Indianapolis to here, I don't really know what was wrong with just asking someone in Indianapolis to take a peek at what was going on outside. They still rely in tornado spotters to pick up the tornadoes. It's actually amusing to watch the TV and they'll get a report from a spotter, then go to the radar to see where that is, "Oh, yes, if you look right here on the radar, you can see the characteristic bowing of the storm front that indicates it's likely tornadoes will spin up from this." Um, a trained spotter just called in a report of a funnel cloud, and they're saying "likely" to spin up a tornado?

Anyway, I now return you to the regularly scheduled conspiracy theory.

 

[tribdog]

tribdog, the FAA may run a handful of real radars, but all of what you described could still be passive (with the exception of the clouds, obviously): even the sweeping green line. Altitude, course, and speed are transponder information - altitude, in particular, requires a pretty advanced 3-d radar to figure out without a transponder and course and speed require tracking the contact for several seconds at least. Also, IIRC, there still needs to be a transmission from the radar that is picked up and responded to by the transponder.

Those balls on the mountains are real doppler radars, mostly for weather - ironically, there are many more TV stations than airports that have them.

THIS is a typical radar output.

http://www.argospress.com/Resources/radar/airtrafficontroradar.htm

does doppler radar have the spinning dish? I remember my dad would take us into the big ball, but first he would have to call Salt Lake to tell them he was going to power down so we wouldn't get microwaved. Then he would slow it down and we could go up. Inside was a rounded rectangular dish about 50 ft wide slowly rotating. He worked in Nevada, Utah, Arizona and Idaho so I would assume they aren't that uncommon if there is at least one in each of 4 neighboring states. and I know what the weather station's doppler radars look like. They are tiny compared to what I'm talking about. My dad's been with the FAA for about 25-30 years, GS17 or 18, radar technician, for airplanes.

 

[tribdog]

I took the test to be an air traffic controller and was given the choice of working in a tower or in a radar center.

 

[mjwhip2]

My dad's been with the FAA for about 25-30 years, GS17 or 18, radar technician, for airplanes.

38 years, as a GS-12 (actually we have a new pay scale now so Dad and I are now "H" pay bands)
True though, the radar only show current position of the aircraft. Sorry tribdog. The transponders within the aircraft will convey the current airspeed, heading, and altitude to the beacons (located at the long range radar sites and other locations) which in turn send the information to the "HOST" computer system at the air route traffic control centers (ARTCC-thats where I work in Salt Lake City). The "HOST" will process the data and send it to the Controllers.
Mike

 

[tribdog]

I stand corrected.